List alert conditions and filter by policy, name, or NRQL query to locate specific monitoring rules.
List alert conditions with optional filters by policy, name, or NRQL query
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Exact condition name to search for (optional) | |
| query | No | Search conditions by NRQL query content (partial match, optional) | |
| policy_id | No | Policy ID to filter conditions (optional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic listing operation and omits important details such as pagination, read-only nature, ordering, result size limits, or how the filters combine, leaving the agent without information about expected behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tight sentence that front-loads the action and then lists the filter options. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant phrasing or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks details an agent often needs for a list tool: pagination, ordering, return shape, and whether filters are combined with AND/OR semantics. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description alone is too thin to fully guide a correct invocation in complex workflows.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description only restates the filter options ('policy, name, or NRQL query') without adding nuance like match semantics, required formatting, or interaction between filters, so it does not add value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb-resource pair ('List alert conditions') and names three concrete filter dimensions (policy, name, NRQL query), so an agent can understand what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling alert-related tools, but the resource and filter set make the purpose reasonably distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'optional filters' gives some context that this is a search/browse operation, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like list_alert_policies or get_alert_violations. No when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool references are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.